HYDERABAD, INDIA: A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Anil Ramesh Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan on Wednesday directed the State government not to allot and spend money on religious pilgrimages. These interim orders were passed while hearing cases pertaining to the subsidised pilgrimage for Christians to Jerusalem, Bethlehem and proposed subsidies for Manasarovar Yatra in China.
The Bench was passing these interim orders in two writ petitions filed way back in November 2008. One case was filed by Satish Agarwal, a businessman from Bowenpally along with Raghava Reddy, president of the Devalaya Parirakshana Samithi. These two challenged the constitutional validity of G.O. 29 issued in July 2008 wherein the subsidised pilgrimage for Christians to Bethlehem and Jerusalem was ordered. The second case was filed by Gandra Mohana Rao, practising advocate, seeking subsidy for Hindu pilgrimages to various places.
The Bench prima facie felt that the Constitution does not permit this kind of subsidy for religious pilgrimages. It heard at length counsel for the petitioners as well as Additional Advocate-General A. Satya Prasad. The petitioners contended that the Article 27 of the Constitution prohibits collection of taxes for religious purposes.
They relied upon the judgment of a seven-judge Bench of Supreme Court delivered in 1954 wherein it was declared “what is forbidden by the Article 27 is specific appropriation of the proceeds of any tax in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination”.
The petitioners further averred that the subject of foreign pilgrimages is within the realm of the Union government and the State government could not have issued any G.O. or subsidised the pilgrimages. The Additional Advocate-General stated that this is a policy of elected government with a popular mandate. He reminded that the Haj pilgrimage for Muslims is being subsidised by the governments for several decades.
He said that the government was ready to subsidise pilgrimage to Manasarovar. The Bench did not appreciate the stand of the government. It felt that the balance of convenience is in favour of giving interim orders staying further expenditure by the government.
1 comment:
Haj subsidy should not be allowed because there is being a lot of errosion of wealth that can be used for welfare of the society.
Post a Comment